flyinmysoup wrote:Hmmm, 'gun rights advocates', 'tin foil hats'........typical smart progressive.......when your arguement is illogical and you can't make your point intellectually.........call people names,( the ones you so compliantly parrot from your dear leader.)

Well, when you can't argue on the facts...

Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficient. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding.- Louis Brandeis

Actually it's well down the road, and hardly the first step. You must not be paying attention! Buying the vote, stealing the vote, rigging the elections, and spreading propaganda have all come before disarming the people. SCOTUS ruled that corporations are people several years ago, and that set the stage for massive spending on elections that can only serve to undermine the will of the people.

You shouldn't isolate yourself with a bunch of gun rights advocates in order to feel that you are protecting our country. There are still legitimate means to be pursued. Have you noticed the internal fighting within the republican party? Have you noticed the Dems have been starting to respond better to polls, and the will of the people? Have you noticed that the people are in favor of universal background checks, and other common sense gun safety legislation?

Want your assault rifle? Join the Army, or police, or go to the range to use one. No one is taking anything away, and your chances of being the hero are pretty small. Put your weapons down and join the fight! It's the will of the people that we're fighting for, not the will of the gun makers.

Whae the radical dems are ignoring is the fact that Chicago and many othern places have the so called assault weapons banned but have the highest number of people shot of anywhere else that does not have guns banned.

Actually it's well down the road, and hardly the first step. You must not be paying attention! Buying the vote, stealing the vote, rigging the elections, and spreading propaganda have all come before disarming the people. SCOTUS ruled that corporations are people several years ago, and that set the stage for massive spending on elections that can only serve to undermine the will of the people.

You shouldn't isolate yourself with a bunch of gun rights advocates in order to feel that you are protecting our country. There are still legitimate means to be pursued. Have you noticed the internal fighting within the republican party? Have you noticed the Dems have been starting to respond better to polls, and the will of the people? Have you noticed that the people are in favor of universal background checks, and other common sense gun safety legislation?

Want your assault rifle? Join the Army, or police, or go to the range to use one. No one is taking anything away, and your chances of being the hero are pretty small. Put your weapons down and join the fight! It's the will of the people that we're fighting for, not the will of the gun makers.

Actually, the SCOTUS did not rule that corporations are people. What they ruled in Citizens United was that individuals did not lose their first amendment rights when they banded together. The ACLU applauded this first amendment ruling.

Assault rifles are banned. The only way you can get them is to apply for a special permit from the government and pay for a VERY expensive tax stamp should they approve.

Not many people would advocate taking away 1st and 2nd amendment rights in one posting. Got any other parts of the constitution you'd like to whittle away?

Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficient. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding.- Louis Brandeis

Runnermike wrote:I wish the gun rights advocates would brush up on basic civics.

People who are willing to take up arms against the government have a name in the very Constituion you hold so dear - it's called treason.

Basic civics like, for example, the Constitution? You clearly have NO understanding of why the 2nd Amendment is there if you are making comments like this. Guns and the 2nd Amendment make people like you who embrace the govt as the all-knowing, all-benevolent source of happiness nervous--you have an irrational abhorrence to guns and so you'll infringe on Constitutional rights of others to appease your own insecurities. If we were talking about freedom of speech--which you probably wholeheartedly embrace--you would be screaming from the mountaintops that the govt was chipping away at your rights.

Educate yourself on the drivers for the 2nd Amendment. Like it or not, the reason it is there is primarily to keep the govt in check . . . under the fear of being overthrown/changed when it becomes tyrannical. Outside of that, the founders clearly also intended for Americans to be able to effectively protect themselves and their property in general. Here are just a handful of relevant quotes from some famous "traitors" (as you would see them). You could find a truckload more if you choose to look--it would help, though, if you spelled "Constitution" correctly . . . maybe that's why you know so little about it?

“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” –Thomas Jefferson, proposed Virginia constitution, June 1776. -Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 (C. J. Boyd, Ed., 1950)

"A free people ought to be armed."- George Washington

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."- George Washington

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."- Thomas Jefferson

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."- Thomas Jefferson (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria)

“Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at the individual discretion, in private self-defense.” - John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America, 1787-88

“A free people ought to be armed. When firearms go, all goes, we need them by the hour. Firearms stand next to importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence.” –George Washington, Boston Independence Chronicle, January 14, 1790

Runnermike wrote:Remove the tin foil hat. This gov't is no more corrupt. Heck the First Bush issued more stricter executive orders on guns. The NRA reversed its own stance on background checks.

"More stricter" . . . really? You must have been sick the days that grammar and the Constitution were covered at school.

It is time to gather your friends and explore how to do recall elections on any politician who goes against the first or second Amendment. Yes, that includes impeaching Obama.

They want to disarm us. They buy elections. The trample our rights. They break our laws. They are bankrupting our Nation and our States. They over tax us. How much will the good people of this State and Country take before we demand real change?

I guess when Obama lies about the prosperous Middle Class tomorrow we should remember how our Government is spying on us why they are arming terrorists and funding terrorist States. It seems the State of the Union is that it is in turmoil or in a death spiral...

I am a slightly left of center Democrat. The legislation proposed by Senate President John Morse is way over the top and will make Democrats look just as nutty as the far right conservatives. This legislation should be stopped in its tracks while the reasonable proposals, including the ban on assault-style weapons, large capacity ammunition clips, and background checks, should go forward. Although, it is unlikely that all of these would pass, they won't make us look crazy.

It must be BAD if the democrats are shaking their heads. What is the goal of Colorado democrats? To turn Colorado into Chicago? All I can say is, we better clean the clowns out of the circus in 2014.

Based on their actions it would appear their goal is to turn Colorado back into a purple or red state again.

Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficient. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding.- Louis Brandeis

This is the Chinese year of the snake, and the Democrats year of the lawsuit. Democrats have increased medical cost by refusing to cap malpractice lawsuit. Now Democrats want to hold gun manufacturers liable. A lawyers liquid dream.

To Democrats, An emotionally distrubed person uses a gun in a mass shooting. An stolen gun is used in a robbery. A gang shooting leaves several gang members died. And the gun manufacturer is responsible and can be held liable. What a wonderful thing to live a BLUE state.

According to Morse to suggest that Republican may pick up seats, because of this bill, "is out of their mind." This bill is an end run around the Second Amendment, plain and simple. Notice Democrats aren't talking much about the Second Amendment since this bill has been introduced.

This bill IS evidence Democrats DON'T support the Second Amendment, regardless of what they say, regarding the Right To Own A Gun. It's also evidence how Democrats say one thing to get elected, then act another way after they're elected.

Coloradoans are going to come out and switch their vote to Republican because of a liability bill for firearms manufacturers? Coloradoans who would not have already voted Republican? Give me a break.

This bill has the weapons lobby and their sycophants in the government shaking in their boots and circling the wagons. Its a threat to their profits and its a threat to the lobbying money they use to flood politicians pockets. Expect a full on freak out if this thing moves forward.

All hands on deck and let the screeching about the sanctity of the second amendment begin!

thomascreo@yahoo.com wrote:I just read two things that were inaccurate. First, Evie Hudak was wrong to characterize semi-automatic AR15s as "made of the battlefield." No military in the world carries semi-automatic AR15s, they merely look similar to the types of weapons that are carried by the US military, but operate much differently. Seconds, Morse was wrong to mention 6 year-olds being killed. Contrary to original reports, it has now been established that the Newtown shooting did not involved an AR15 except for the one sitting in the shooter's trunk, which did not kill anyone.

I've heard that claimed a number of times, but have been unable to confirm it with any factual data.

Factual data would, most definitively, consist of the autopsies showing no rifle bullet wounds among the victims no rifle shell casings at the scene, or video surveillance tapes of Lanza as he approached or entered the school since a rifle would not be concealed from obvious sight (and I doubt that school was the one place in America that is completely devoid of video surveillance).

If such things exist I would appreciate a valid reference to them since I cannot find them.

Above all else, factual and verifiable truth has to be the rule of the day, and to date I have not seen that presented in support of this claim. But I do ask for reference if it exists since something may have come into evidence since I last searched or that I have missed and I want it known if it has.

"The only people who don't want to disclose the truth are people with something to hide." (Barack Obama August 21, 2010)

---for a a short history lesson on the firearms manufacturers "protection" laws, the reason certain lawsuits against firearms manufacturers were stopped by Congress (overwhelmingly) was the efforts started by one lawyer--Windell Turley,( IIRC), and largely aided by one notoriously anti-gun federal judge which were designed from the beginning and advertised as such , to put firearms manufacturers out of business.

--several class action suits based on such criteria as whose handguns had right-hand or left-hand rifling twist--(since no single manufacturer could be held to have manufactured the weapon in question) provided the impetus for the legislation---

--for example, in one lawsuit (settled out of court as so many of such expensive "nuisance" lawsuits are) the damages were assessed against handgun manufacturers on the basis of market share (from BATF records) since no single maker could be determined from the rifling marks--

Ronbo wrote:It is absolutely insane to hold the manufacturer liable for misuse of a product. If this happens with guns, there are no limits to what manufacturers could be liable for. At what point are we going to hold individuals responsible? This is what happens when you legislate based on emotion.

You do realize that this is he way it is now. Only gun manufacturers enjoy such immunity. So the slippery slope argument doesn't apply here.

Only gun manufacturers "enjoy" attacks on their industry by politicians attempting to drive them out of business by bankrupting them in the courts. Thus, the unique protections provided to them by the afore mentioned federal law preventing suits liability against them.

seloverb wrote:Want your assault rifle? Join the Army, or police, or go to the range to use one. No one is taking anything away, and your chances of being the hero are pretty small. Put your weapons down and join the fight! It's the will of the people that we're fighting for, not the will of the gun makers.

OK . . . we'll just ignore the incorrectly-used "assault weapon" moniker. It makes the gun sound scarier, so you progressives will just keep on misusing it. Assault weapons can be fired full-auto and are already effectively banned (unless you are licensed and have SEVERAL thousand dollars to spend).

There is nothing "defective" about a firearm that functions as designed . . . and that means a weapon that when you pull the trigger, a bullet comes out of the barrel. That does NOT exclusively mean that something gets killed--many people like to shoot targets for sport. The thing that is defective when people are killed by weapons is the person pulling the trigger. Hammers kill more people every year than rifles--should a victim or his/her family be able to sue Stanley or Craftsman/Sears when their tool is used improperly to kill or maim someone? Baseball bats are used in murders and assaults . . . is Louisville Slugger liable for damages because a bat is inherently designed to be swung and make contact with an object? Clearly the answer is "no".

If your rifle blows up in your hands when firing, that is defective. If it goes off without pulling the trigger and injures someone . . . that is defective (albeit nearly impossible barring some defective person operating it improperly in some way--"it just went off" is almost always human error). Those would be conditions for suit--and area already readily available and used. There are also civil remedies for wrongful death which are already available--but the responsibility lies with the defective party (the shooter) and not the properly functioning object.

In closing--there is NOTHING in the Constitution that implies "if you want a weapon, join the army or be a cop" or that says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed--unless the odds of actually needing to use the weapon are relatively small."

You hate guns . . . you fear them. We get it. You don't have to own one or use one. It's our Constitutional right to do both. And the founding fathers wisely put that into the Bill of Rights knowing that misinformed do-gooders and the govt would constantly posture to take those rights away.

Last edited by TAF on February 11th, 2013, 7:40 am, edited 1 time in total.

An overwhelming majority of Americans want greater controls on guns, including registration of all guns sold, a ban on military style automatic weapons and large capacity magazines. For all you paraniod freaks who think that the reason for you to bear arms is to rise up against a tyrannical government, think again. It is most American voters who are in your sights. Not the government.

It cannot be true that the minority of people(gun owners) are right about this issue and the majority of people (non-gun-owners) are wrong.

It is time to stop listening to those who harbor some paraniod fantasy about a non-existent tyrannical threat. That is an irrelevant voice, armed to the teeth as it may be.